tiltbillings wrote:What basis do non-Theravadion ordination lineages claim validity?
Bankei wrote:Hi Tilt,
Sorry, I didn't see this before asking a similar question here:
viewtopic.php?f=19&t=3199
Bankei's question was put into the classical section frame work: what would be the traditional (sectarian) justification for rejecting (or accepting to some degree or other) other ordination lineages.retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Bankei,Bankei wrote:Hi Tilt,
Sorry, I didn't see this before asking a similar question here:
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=3199
Actually, you and I asked our questions before Tilt, but I suspect Tilt didn't exclusively want a Classical opinion (hence his choice to discuss this topic in the Dhammic Free-For-All).
Metta,
Retro.
tiltbillings wrote:Secondly, most splits in ordination lineages were not schisms, but rather happened simply because of distance. There being no central papal-type authority in Buddhism, given the vastness of anciet India where groups are going to be separated from each other, it not surprising that various lineage developed. Also, the differences in the Vinayas are fairly minor, and are certainly not in the major rules.
tiltbillings wrote:Who is to say that a particular lineage does not trace itself back to the Buddha?
retrofuturist wrote:.tiltbillings wrote:Who is to say that a particular lineage does not trace itself back to the Buddha?
Does anybody say this?)
tiltbillings wrote:Is the Theravada ordination lineage THE only valid lineage extant?
tiltbillings wrote:What basis do non-Theravadion ordination lineages claim validity?
seanpdx wrote:tiltbillings wrote:Is the Theravada ordination lineage THE only valid lineage extant?
Notiltbillings wrote:What basis do non-Theravadion ordination lineages claim validity?
Same basis as the theravadin lineage? =D

jcsuperstar wrote:(so why all the fuss over his lineage then?),..
tiltbillings wrote:Is the Theravada ordination lineage THE only valid lineage extant? If, yes, based upon what?
What basis do non-Theravadion ordination lineages claim validity?
chownah wrote:tiltbillings wrote:Is the Theravada ordination lineage THE only valid lineage extant? If, yes, based upon what?
What basis do non-Theravadion ordination lineages claim validity?
We only have the six sense bases from which to make this "validity" determination......and since I guess we can't see, smell, hear, taste, or touch "validity" then I guess it must be one of those "thought" things.......so whatever one comes up with it is just an idea that has popped into someone's head......I guess you could say that "validity" is empty.....except perhaps when they validate my free parking sticker when I make a purchase at one of the stores in town....except for THAT the concept of "validity" is empty....I guess.
chownah
tiltbillings wrote:chownah wrote:tiltbillings wrote:Is the Theravada ordination lineage THE only valid lineage extant? If, yes, based upon what?
What basis do non-Theravadion ordination lineages claim validity?
We only have the six sense bases from which to make this "validity" determination......and since I guess we can't see, smell, hear, taste, or touch "validity" then I guess it must be one of those "thought" things.......so whatever one comes up with it is just an idea that has popped into someone's head......I guess you could say that "validity" is empty.....except perhaps when they validate my free parking sticker when I make a purchase at one of the stores in town....except for THAT the concept of "validity" is empty....I guess.
chownah
Really does not answer the question, does it?
tiltbillings wrote:chownah wrote:tiltbillings wrote:Is the Theravada ordination lineage THE only valid lineage extant? If, yes, based upon what?
What basis do non-Theravadion ordination lineages claim validity?
We only have the six sense bases from which to make this "validity" determination......and since I guess we can't see, smell, hear, taste, or touch "validity" then I guess it must be one of those "thought" things.......so whatever one comes up with it is just an idea that has popped into someone's head......I guess you could say that "validity" is empty.....except perhaps when they validate my free parking sticker when I make a purchase at one of the stores in town....except for THAT the concept of "validity" is empty....I guess.
chownah
Really does not answer the question, does it?
chownah wrote: Really does not respond to the post it quotes, does it?
....or does it?
tiltbillings wrote:chownah wrote:tiltbillings wrote:We only have the six sense bases from which to make this "validity" determination......and since I guess we can't see, smell, hear, taste, or touch "validity" then I guess it must be one of those "thought" things.......so whatever one comes up with it is just an idea that has popped into someone's head......I guess you could say that "validity" is empty.....except perhaps when they validate my free parking sticker when I make a purchase at one of the stores in town....except for THAT the concept of "validity" is empty....I guess.
chownah
Really does not answer the question, does it?chownah wrote: Really does not respond to the post it quotes, does it?
....or does it?
Does your msg answer the question? who knows, given that what you are saying here is a bit of a mystery. except for THAT the concept of "validity" is empty What conclusion are we to draw from that? Validity really does not mean anything because it is empty? Then certainly murder does not meanything because IT is empty. So, what are you trying to say here?
Registered users: Bakmoon, Bhikkhu Pesala, Bing [Bot], Branko, cooran, Feathers, Google [Bot], Kim O'Hara, mikenz66, Modus.Ponens, perkele, polarbuddha101, purple planet, reflection